The epetition, initiated by David Lane on the No.10 Downing Street website asking the government to re-establish the National Centre for Excellence in Residential Child Care or its equivalent to provide leadership, support and advice for residential child care services has closed and has attracted insufficient signatures to be considered a subject for debate in the House of Commons. It was perhaps predictable that residential child care would not raise the 100,000 signatures needed for this to happen. At least the petition provided an opportunity to publicise residential child care's need for greater recognition and support. However, the number of signatures the petition garnered, 268, may be cause for disappointment. This is not because 256,645 have signed to end "all the financial welfare benefits of those convicted of a criminal act" during the riots early this year, not because 134,638 have signed to end "mass immigration" nor indeed because 39,173 have petitioned to insist that all Formula 1 motor races should be on "free to air" television. All these may tell us something about what is currently important to those who are signing petitions but they are issues which have a greater constituency than residental child care. No, the disappointment may be that the number of signatories for re-establishing the NCERCC represents such a sparse response from a population which even at a minimal estimate includes 100,000 adults residing in the United Kingdom who have been, at some time in their lives, in residential child care or residential education (excluding the private "public school" system) and probably more than 25,000 people who are or have been directly or indirectly employed in the residential care and education sector. Given this (admittedly estimated) number the total of 268 signatures on this petition might be thought exceedingly low. This may tell us that relatively few people in this sector of care had felt they benefited from the services provided by NCERCC but certainly the responses received by goodenoughcaring relating to the closure of NCERCC were unanimous in their praise for the Centre. It may be saying that most are content with the recognition, training and support they receive. Another conclusion might be drawn that those who have been in any way involved in residential child care are almost invariably critical of it, or indifferent about it. Alternatively,the result may not represent criticism or indifference but simply demonstrate a lack of awareness of government epetitions, yet the possibility remains that the relative dearth of signatories is a reflection of the pessimism within residential child care; a sense of "Why bother ? Our resources will be cut whatever we say or do." If this were so, it would be an unhelpful pedestal on which to be stuck, given that in these times services to children and young people are diminishing at a significant - not to say alarming - rate, and at the best of times residential child care services have not ranked high on a politician's list of vote winning issues. Now may be a good time, for all those involved in residential child care, including those who support it as teachers, as publicists, as administrators and as politicians to fall in line with the spirit underpinning David Lane's petition. This calls for the development of an articulate and cogent argument for the provision of high quality residential care for those children and young people whose needs it can undoubtably be the best at meeting.
Evidence that determined and well thought out argument can bring change is evident in Essex County Council's decision to postpone its plans to close 7 of its 8 children's homes following an application by a 17 years old young man for a judicial review of the Council's closure plan. The young man argued that the authority, in taking the decision to close the homes, had failed to take account of his individual needs. The High Court Judge thought the authority's decision to close the homes by December 15th was unreasonable. Essex County Council has now issued a legally enforcable undertaking not to close any of its homes as long as those homes are needed by its "settled" looked after children and young people (Lauren Higgs,CYP Now November 28th, 2011). This change of policy may only represent a postponement but the young man's determination to stand up successfully for his right to have continuity of care in his children's home is a triumph for him and a fillip for residential child care.
This opinion piece first appeared on December 27th, 2011, on the goodenoughcaring website home page at
http://www.goodenoughcaring.com/
This opinion piece first appeared on December 27th, 2011, on the goodenoughcaring website home page at
http://www.goodenoughcaring.com/
